Allahabad High Court
Harkesh vs State Of U.P. on 16 April, 2019
Bench: Bachchoo Lal
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
?Court No. - 41
Case :- CRIMINAL MISC. BAIL APPLICATION No. - 15667 of 2019
Applicant :- Harkesh
Opposite Party :- State Of U.P.
Counsel for Applicant :- Rakesh Pati Tiwari
Counsel for Opposite Party :- G.A.
Hon'ble Bachchoo Lal,J.
This bail application has been filed on behalf of the applicant Harkesh who is involved in Case Crime No. 654 of 2010, under section 302, 201, 120B, 34 IPC, P.S. Hayat Nagar, District Sambhal.
Heard learned counsel for the applicant, learned A.G.A. for the State and perused the record.
Learned counsel for the applicant submits that applicant is innocent and has falsely been implicated in the present case. During investigation the involvement of applicant was found false. No charge-sheet was submitted against the applicant. The applicant has been summoned to face the trial on the basis of an application moved under section 319 Cr.P.C. by the prosecution. Nothing incriminating has been recovered from the possession of the applicant or on his pointing out. It has further been submitted that during trial the statements of six witnesses have been recorded. Except P.W. 1 Smt. Premwati and P.W. 3 Naresh no other wintesses have made allegation against the applicant. It has further been submitted that applicant has not committed the alleged offence. The applicant has no criminal history and is in jail since 7.7.2018.
Per contra; learned A.G.A. has opposed the prayer for bail and argued that applicant is named in the FIR. The FIR was lodged by the mother of the deceased namely Smt. Premwati. In FIR it has been mentioned that the applicant fired upon the deceased due to which she died on spot. The informant Premwati has also sustained injuries in this incident. The co-accused Vijendra has caused injury to the informant. Premwati is the eye witness of the alleged occurrence. Her statement has been recorded as P.W. 1 before the trial court in which she has supported the prosecution version and has clearly stated that applicant has fired upon the deceased due to which she died. In the statement of P.W. 3 Naresh it has come that he had seen the applicant and co-accused Vijendra running from the place of occurrence after making fire. He has further stated that when he reached near the place of occurrence he found Kusum lying on earth. He has further stated that the deceased had gone with applicant and co-accused Vijendra prior to the alleged incident and when she returned back her father solemnized her marriage and also lodged FIR against the applicant and co-accused Vijendra. The applicant is the main accused who has fired upon the deceased due to which she died. During trial the statement of 6 witnesses have been recorded. The applicant has committed the alleged offence, therefore, he is not entitled for bail.
Considering the facts and circumstances of the case and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, I am not inclined to release the applicant on bail.
Consequently, the prayer for bail of the applicant is refused and the bail application of the applicant Harkesh is hereby rejected.
However, the trial court is directed to proceed with the trial and conclude the same expeditiously preferably within a period of six months from the date of the production of the certified copy of this order, if there is no legal impediment.
Order Date :- 16.4.2019
Masarrat
